Social

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has staunchly opposed the use of any state funds to help renovation Wrigley Field from thing one. Most recently, he engaged in a political battle with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel over an appointee to run the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, and accused Emanuel of opposing his preferred appointee because Emanuel wanted to use the ISFA to help fund Wrigley renovations. Emanuel denied the charge, but continued to oppose the appointment of Kelly Kraft, Quinn’s former budget director.

With Quinn’s handpicked choice at the helm, you can be assured that the ISFA will not be involved in assisting the Cubs to renovate Wrigley Field any time soon. That seemed like a long-shot, anyway, given Quinn’s opposition to the use of state funds. (Obligatory, casual mention of the fact that the ISFA built U.S. Cellular Field for the White Sox.) (Oh, hell, I’ll go further and just quote the opening screen on the ISFA’s web site:

Welcome to the new Web site of the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA), the developer, owner and operator of U.S. Cellular Field, home of the 2005 World Champion Chicago White Sox.

ISFA was created by the Illinois General Assembly in 1987 for the purpose of building the New Comiskey Park, known since 2003 as U.S. Cellular Field. Since its opening season in 1991, this baseball stadium has undergone extensive renovation and improvement, all under the management of ISFA. We continue to maintain and repair the stadium, along with our nearly 80 acres of surrounding property, to the highest standards.

Yup. Just sayin’.)

Hopefully Emanuel remains committed to working with the Cubs to renovate Wrigley Field, whether by way of the use of public funds (a portion of the amusement tax collected on top of Cubs tickets) or by easing restrictions surrounding the use of, and advertising at, Wrigley Field. It still seems to me like the best option is a combination of both.

Team President Theo Epstein just last night reminded season ticket holders that a proper renovation at Wrigley Field is important to the future competitiveness of the team, both by way of revenue that helps the on-field product, and by way of improved player facilities.

The state has so many budget problems I never expected state help. Also, I don’t expect the state to use wrigley or the surrounding area like the city might.

Pat

Brett, the state owns the cell. Just sayin.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

The ISFA owns it (it says so right there). The ISFA is an agency of the State of Illinois. So, what are you just sayin’?

Pat

Seriously? Well, there’s a difference between paying for something that you then own and paying for something somebody else owns. I would think the distinction was obvious.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

That distinction is obvious. Your comment, however, was not.

Article: The ISFA, an agency of the state, owns the Cell.

You: The state owns the Cell.

Me: I just said that.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

If the point you’d like to be making is that the ISFA owns the Cell, and thus their paying for renovations is a different story there than at Wrigley, I’d ask you to also share the details of the lease agreement between the White Sox and the ISFA. If it’s not a ridiculous sweetheart deal for the Sox, then we might have something here.

Pat

I think it is a totally cheap deal, somewhere in the area of 1.5 million in rent. However in addition to the taxes that were added it paid itself off several years ago. But the key is the state still owns the facility and the land.

And for the record, I don’t think the state should have paid for that one either. Solider Field I view a little differently due to the value of lakefront property. Any losses incurred on the deal could easily be recouped by repurposing the land if it came to it.

CubbiesOHCubbies

I may be incorrect here but I could swear I read somewhere that the sox pay the state or isfa one dollar a year rent for the cell. Do you know if this info is correct?

CubbiesOHCubbies

Never mind I found it. For the first 18 years the sox played there rent free and kept all baseball related proceeds. For the last two years they paid 1.5 million per year and kept all proceeds. Kind of sounds like a sweetheart deal to me, but I am in no ways a business major.

TWC

So the ISFA claims they own it just for fun?

Pat

The IFSA is part of the state, as should be obvious since it was created by the general assembly.

Pat

You own (edit button please)

Don Irwin

Just remember obama is a White Sux fan. hahahaha

Steve

…and Rahm is a Cubs fan. He’s the mayor of Chicago and could get the funding if he wants. In Chicago politics, there’s always money to be had, legally or illegally, and it’s usually the latter.

fromthemitten

Hillary Clinton is a Cubs fan

Just sayin

2016

BluBlud

Once again, it is not the business of the government to pay to built stadiums. It is also not the business of the state to tell Ricketts what to do with his stadium. I have done a little research on this since the last article, and I have come to this conclusion. Ricketts needs to be able to build his own stadium. However, if the local government is going to tell him what he can and can’t do with his stadium, then they need to pony up the difference in what money he could be making. This doesn’t mean a loan either. This mean they should just give up the cash and the Cubs should not be forced to pay a dime back.

In other words, release the landmark status, or the City should build the damn thing.

I very rarely change my opinion on something once I have formed one, but on this one I have.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

All reasonable.

Cubbie Blues

Agreed.

BT

A lot of that changes when the government is demonstrably making money off of that business. It seems a bit unfair when the government says that they will take the money made from the Cubs amusement tax revenues, but won’t give them anything to improve their product, even though they’ve helped out virtually every other major team in the state. The Cell, Soldier Field, and the United Center did not spring up magically from a corn field.

Mike

I think people over-analyze the amusement tax issue. It’s just another pool of revenue for the state. There’s no rational reason that it should be allowed to be re-purposed by the organization remitting it. And I do mean remitting – don’t forget that it’s not the Cubs who pay the amusement tax, it’s the Cubs’ customers.

I mean, my town “makes money” off of my property taxes. That doesn’t mean that I should be able to get a portion of it back to pay to renovate my home and increase its taxable value. I mean, it’d be nice certainly, but they’re under no obligation to do so.

The strongest argument the Cubs have is the landmark site issue. And I do agree with that. The restrictions placed on Wrigley are ridiculous. However, I will note that it’s not like those restrictions weren’t known by the Ricketts when they purchased the Cubs, and without those restrictions their purchase cost would have been considerably higher.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

All very fair, but what exactly are the amusement taxes paying for? What services? It certainly isn’t the mere right to own safe property or have police/garbage/fire/whatever, because the Cubs undoubtedly pay property taxes (and income taxes, and a commercial activities tax, and others I’m sure).

So, isn’t it a fair argument that taxes paid by Cubs fans or by the Cubs themselves (that’s really tomatoes tomahtos, because any amount that’s taxed on top of the tickets is an amount that the Cubs could be charging and collecting themselves if there wasn’t a tax) on Cubs tickets for Cubs games should go to providing some kind of public service related to Cubs games?

Mike

No, it’s not a fair argument. The amusement taxes are paying for any and all state services. In the same way that my income taxes pay for all state services, and any other sales tax pays for all state services. It’s a separate source of revenue, but that doesn’t mean it’s a separate source of funds. We get taxed on ton of different things. It is absolutely for police/fire/garbage/whatever. It all goes into the same pot.

Don’t confuse it with things like FICA taxes which are taxes to fund specific programs. These are just general fund taxes.

Beer Baron

The difference is if I get tired of Chicago’s taxes and leave, someone else will buy my house, take my job, shop at my stores, etc and the property tax, income tax, or sales tax I’ve been paying will continue on. If the Cubs get sick of it and decide to build in the suburbs, the city of Chicago stops collecting this tax – period. So if the city can’t afford the loan based on this tax, they need to stop and think how they would handle completely losing it altogether. Honestly it is a pretty unique situation that doesn’t compare to anything you or I experience – best comparison would be a major corporation threating to leave the state if they don’t get a major tax break (oh wait, the state already did that).

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

It was a philosophical question, not a practical one.

Mike

And not get overly political, but the structure of it is essentially just a form of progressive taxation. The state has decided they need $10. They can either charge it in income taxes, or they can charge $9 in income taxes and $1 to people who in their estimation can afford it more by virtue of the fact that they’re spending money on things like baseball tickets.

BT

Mike, that’s the justification for literally EVERY tax and EVERY tax expenditure. If that is the argument, then we really can’t discuss spending any tax money anywhere.

Mike

I’m not sure you understood my point. Of COURSE that’s the argument for every tax. That’s what I’m saying. And it’s precisely why the entertainment tax on Cubs tickets isn’t subject to some sort of special rules that would allow the Cubs to get it back.

Kevin

Agree 100% Brett!

Dr. Percival Cox

This is incredibly sad, but it’s getting to the point where the Cubs need to consider re-locating. (Yeah, I know, earth will crash into the sun before that happens, but still.)

gblan014

As much as I like Wrigley, I think that if a new stadium was built for the Cubs, it would only take a year or two and everybody would have moved on. I’ll take a good team in a boring stadium any day over a team that can’t fully exploit the advantage that should come from playing in the 3rd largest city in the country. What about the near West Side? There’s some vacant lands there and that’s where the Cubs played before Wrigley.

Pat

I think the landmark restrictions should be removed, but that won’t mean the Cubs can do whatever they want. There are still zoning laws that need to be considered which may govern things like the total height, etc.

Curt

WTF what a bunch of political hypocrites , the whitesox get a stadium built for them and the cubs ask for assistance and get told no. Unbelievable

Ryne

They need to get this renovation done. I’ve heard the weight room in Wrigley was once an old storage closet when Wrigley was first built, and is worse than most high school weight rooms. How can we expect to keep high profile players if our facilities are that bad?

Polar Bear

I’ve coming to the thinking that they should move the team to an outlying suburb and stick it to Chicago. Right now, the city gets to have its cake and eat it too with the landmark status and the amusement tax. Relocate, get a brand new ballpark, and tell them to cram their taxes.

cubchymyst

Can we get one of the HGTV shows to come in and shoot part of remodel for a show? It might be a way to gain some outside funding. I’d be interested in watching an episode or two on a Wrigley field renovation (it at least be as interesting as on of the house flipping shows).

fortyonenorth

I’ve worked for HGTV. They are among the cheapest networks on television. You might get enough out of them to upgrade the popcorn machine.

cubchymyst

There goes that idea.

Mckay

They just upgraded the weightroom two years ago, according to the gentleman that gave me a tour of Wrigley two weeks ago. Maybe my highschool weightroom was horrible but it looked nice to me.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

Did they show you the medical facilities or the “batting cage”? Those are pretty … bad.

Mckay

They didn’t show me the medical facilites or the “batting cage”. I have seen the batting cage on a previous trip and it is horrilbe. I know the visiting team facilities are the smallest in the majors and they have nothing but a stationary bike for the visiting team. I don’t care if the visiting team is comfortable though. I think part of the struggle is simply space. I always enjoy your stories even though I hardly ever comment. Thanks for keeping the conversation about the Cubs relevant even in the off season. Have a great weekend!

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

And a thanks right back to you, Mckay.

Dr. Percival Cox

“And now, the starting lineup for your Racine Cubs!”

Dustin S

This is a discussion that could easily descend into being very political, especially 4 days before the election…but I’ll just say that it’s not too debatable that taxes in Illinois and Cook County in particular are pretty nutty. If the state doesn’t want to help with the Wrigley renovation that’s fine, I probably even agree with it, but the “entertainment” tax needs to be ended asap.

I’d be all for the Cubs not getting any help as long as the state lowers sales taxes, beverage taxes, hotel taxes, cigarette (and I don’t even smoke) and liquor taxes, entertainment taxes, gas taxes, tolls (road taxes), etc. I thought the colonists left Great Britain for a reason lol…. If you add up the costs from start to finish to attend a Cubs game, especially for someone like me coming from out of town and staying overnight in a hotel, and figure up the additional costs over what it should be for a typical fan from taxes, it’s crazy.

http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

I guess it’s an appropriate place for me to add that I’m pleasantly surprised at how well this discussion has gone. Nicely done, everyone.

Cubbie Blues

It isn’t midnight yet.

Kevin

Even though we don’t hear anything directly from the Cubs organization about renovating Wrigley Field or a possible relocation, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t already have contingency plans In place to protect and maximize their interests.

Interesting on The Twitters

Beautiful BN Apparel

BN on Video

Post Categories

Site Archives

Get In Touch

Search

Disclaimer

In addition to news, Bleacher Nation publishes both rumor and opinion, as well as information reported by other sources. Information on Bleacher Nation may contain errors or inaccuracies, though we try to avoid them. Links to content and the quotation of material from other news sources are not the responsibility of Bleacher Nation. Photos used either are the property of Bleacher Nation, are used with permission, are fair use, or are believed to be in the public domain. Legitimate requests to remove copyrighted photos not in the public domain will be honored promptly. Comments by third parties are neither sponsored or endorsed by Bleacher Nation.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.